From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: r6rs incompatibilities Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 19:15:18 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1274463196 13352 80.91.229.12 (21 May 2010 17:33:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 17:33:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: Julian Graham Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 21 19:33:14 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OFW5t-0002K4-O0 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 21 May 2010 19:33:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42385 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OFW5q-0000RB-VN for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 21 May 2010 13:33:07 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37554 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OFW5i-0000Oa-HU for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 May 2010 13:32:59 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OFW5f-0006W2-Jc for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 May 2010 13:32:57 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:35878 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OFW5f-0006Vx-HR for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 May 2010 13:32:55 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE79DB5BB5; Fri, 21 May 2010 13:32:53 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=w/Vom0Q1zIsA MGNpT8l0GkPA9q8=; b=VtjyQahBlX5I0eJSEf/cKHh/LysoDWG9PYjB4DE9PRwU 7JHs3gTTU6UJ1L4QSaVvL2rYMiBiXQ3A7tDxuCSiJ1X2tFogQBSDBcTZRMBIbYpo whOw9WNSrGk/LGV+eZ31OLenHuSw+4ZCQ8lPJqM64UWUGaLmjJx8VgjNV4s4CbI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=exHnph 4Tl1xfxYUdCTyF6uIsThUxQ828ZD3cwbcCUdYODQWYGYiXpUm4+NtUsN/6hSLzFK t2Gio0qvc+5ACCYmvP9yA3kqLOuE6RedJoBXy2t4z7/PTNzUiMJKoC0Ex1y7vevV GO/S/V5MQakDCbkahqce8AMpIBTqf8wWwS/Hs= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA22EB5BB4; Fri, 21 May 2010 13:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote (unknown [79.151.125.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DC50B5BB0; Fri, 21 May 2010 13:32:51 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Julian Graham's message of "Fri, 21 May 2010 08:47:33 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E27B3A64-64FE-11DF-BD9A-D033EE7EF46B-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:10340 Archived-At: Hi, On Fri 21 May 2010 14:47, Julian Graham writes: >> =C2=A0* The R6RS specifies many situations in which a conforming >> =C2=A0 implementation must signal a specific error. Guile doesn't really >> =C2=A0 care about that too much -- if a correct R6RS program would not h= it >> =C2=A0 that error, we don't bother checking for it. > > In a lot of these cases, that's because our libraries simply re-export > bindings from Guile's core library or an SRFI. Instead of changing > the error-signaling of the original procedures, we could wrap them a > bit more in the relevant libraries to add argument validation, say, or > to re-throw Guile's core errors as R6RS exceptions. Sure; we'll probably take them case-by-case, accomodating where it makes sense and documenting the incompatibility where it doesn't. It's not like Guile's exception protocol is particularly well-thought-out :P Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/